This is not an attempt to join the fray. Tedford is a good man and a good coach who has done wondrous things for the Bears but is mired in a multi-year slump that, unfortunately for all involved, seems to be deepening.

If you want someone to demand his dismissal, you have come to the wrong place.

My aim, rather, is to provide the financial context to any decision on Tedford’s future.

If the season continues to deteriorate, the Bears will face two questions on the money front:

* Can they afford to fire Tedford?

* Can they afford to keep him?

Buckle up. Let’s get to it …

Based on an addendum that took effect Jan. 1, 2011, Tedford’s contract runs through the 2015 season.

He receives $225,000 in base pay, $1,575,000 in a so-called talent fee (common practice in major college athletics) and a $500,000 annual retention bonus, which adds up to $2.3 million per year.

There is no buyout, and yes, Cal would owe Tedford the retention bonus if he’s terminated.

Stripped of its legalese, the relevant section in the contract states:

In the event the University terminates this agreement without cause … University shall continue to pay Coach for the remainder of the term of this Agreement, including … base salary, talent fee in such amounts and in such manner as set forth in the Contract Addendum as of the date of termination … In lieu of the contributions that otherwise would have been paid into the Deferred Compensation Plan or paid to Coach as a retention bonus as provided in Paragraph 9, the University will pay such amounts directly to Coach at the time the University would otherwise have been obligated to … pay such retention bonus.

So if Cal fired Tedford after this season, the school would be on the hook for three years of pay, or $6.9 million.

There is a mitigation clause, however: Tedford is obligated to seek employment in college football or the NFL as a head coach, coordinator or assistant — the TV booth doesn’t count — and his salary from that job would reduce Cal’s liability over the next three years by an equivalent amount:

“Coach has the duty to obtain other employment in mitigation of any damages he may sustain by virtue of the termination of this Employment Contract.”

But the contract does not define the phrase “duty to obtain.” How hard does Tedford have to look? And what happens if an honest attempt is unsuccessful?

It’s not unreasonable to think — again, if Cal’s collapse continues — that Tedford and the university would come to an agreement by which he receives less than the $6.9 million, paid out in a lump sum, in exchange for ripping up the mitigation clause.

But the costs of dismissal aren’t restricted to Tedford’s contract.

There’s the expenses involved in turning over the coaching staff … and the price tag of the new coach’s contract over and above Tedford’s annual salary … and whatever the new staff would make over and above the current staff … and the cost of the search itself (travel, executive placement firm, etc).

So we’re talking well in excess of $7 million.

(Salaries for top coordinators and assistants aren’t going down. Every new coaching staff in the Pac-12 earns more than the one it replaced.)

Whether the total termination expenses are $8 million or $10 million, it’s a ton of money — and it can’t come from the university. State funds don’t pay Tedford’s salary, and state funds won’t pay Tedford’s walk-away money.

If a change becomes necessary, the Bears would need some deep-pocketed donors to make it happen.

Which brings us to the second question: If the season continues to deteriorate, could the Bears afford to keep Tedford?

The very facilities that he helped build (through unprecedented success on the field from 2002-08) could leave the university with no recourse but to dismiss him.

Cal spent $474 million to build a new high-performance training center and renovate Memorial Stadium. The vast majority of the training center and the full cost of the stadium were financed externally.

The stadium’s bonded debt includes $200 million issued at 4 percent (non-taxable), another $75 million issued at 4.86 percent (non-taxable) — it’s part of a larger “Century Bond” issued by the UC’s Office of the President — and $45 million that has not yet been issued.

Cal’s financing plan is extremely complicated and will play out over decades, for better or worse.

It relies on numerous revenue streams, including a facility fee, philanthropy and increased media rights revenue in the form of Cal’s share of the Pac-12 Conference’s $3 billion deal with ESPN and Fox.

But the heart of the financing plan is the Endowment Seating Program (ESP), which allows fans to buy 50-year rights to approximately 3,000 premium seats. The ESP payments can be financed over time and are placed into a fund that’s used to service the debt.

The university’s goal is to raise $270 million through the ESP by next summer. According to the latest figures available, through June 30, the Bears have just $40.7 million cash in hand.

That’s not good, but it’s not quite as bad as it looks:

1. For all intent and purposes, the figure is a bit higher because a large account (approx 30 seats) is being modified and, for that reason, isn’t reflected in the report.

That single account could produce several million dollars, depending on the price of each seat, once it’s on the books.

2. The $40.7 million cash-in-hand equates to $140 million over time, which is 52 percent of the $270 million goal — assuming, of course, that the payments are made.

And there’s one of the keys to the Tedford situation: Participants in theESP can drop out at any time, without penalty.

Imagine a scenario in which the season continues to fizzle and the university decides, for whatever reason, to keep Tedford.

How many fans would willingly write six- or seven-figure checks for the ESP?

And how many fans with existing ESP contracts and (little outlay) would cancel or threaten to cancel because, well, they just aren’t all that excited about the thought of another year under Tedford?

Cal’s solution to servicing the stadium debt is about more than finding new ESP customers. It’s also about keeping the ones they have.

Those are much tougher tasks with a coach who just went 4-8 (or worse).

Any shortfalls in the projected ESP revenue would force Cal to look elsewhere — to the Pac-12 TV money, for instance.

That wouldn’t be a problem, except the Pac-12 TV money has other potential uses, like department operations.

If you hadn’t heard, Cal athletics has been running a bit of a deficit lately.

In other words: It’s all interconnected.

The football team’s performance affects the success of the $270 million Endowment Seating Program, which affects the ability to service the $321 million stadium debt, which affects the allocation of other revenue streams, which affects the department’s ability to manage operations, which affects things like … THE FUTURE OF CAL INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS.

Of all the issues athletic director Sandy Barbour and chancellor Robert Birgeneau might have to consider when evaluating Tedford’s future, the ESP progress (or lack thereof) could very well be at the top of the list.

Post navigation

I don’t think Cal fans should be to hard on Tosh. He will be back coaching there next year when cal fires tedford and hires Wilcox

BILL

Tedford should have been fired 5 years ago. The alums need to buyout the contract now before furthe rdamage to the program. As for Sandy Barbour and her poor decision to get Tedford a contract extension and the poor management for the PSL program trying to sell 40 year licenses for $250K to $500K needs to be fired as well…..alot of older alums have given up their seats due to barbour and the almighty dollar rising prices during the depresssion.

FIRE TEDFORD AND BARBOUR NOW!!!!!!

Vince

I won’t go to aother game until they FIRE this loser. Some of the best Quarterbacks in the Country are from the Bay Area and this fool can’t sign one.